Science is full of presumptions.  What the philosopher calls a presumption is taken by the scientist as a principle, or postulate, or even a law.  The philosopher – the more general of the two types of thinkers – listens to the scientist, who confidently sets forth principle after principle, postulate upon postulate, and law after rigid law.  It takes enormous patience on the part of the philosopher to listen to the scientist while the latter proves theorem after theorem.  The real dispute between the professions is on the question, “What is refutable?”, and that’s why science changes.

            Einstein was a genius.  He was, perhaps, the most extraordinary genius in the field of physics.  As remarkable as the Theory of Relativity was, however, it was still necessary to reconcile it with another great theory, Gravity.  Other theories inevitably modify our view of General Relativity, whether in its applications, or in the gray areas between it and the newer theories.  To attempt to refute it is ridiculous.

            The better path, according to the philosopher, is to look at the theory – and this applies to most any theory – and treat its principles or postulates as presumptions.  DesCartes, the French philosopher, presented a method that might well be used to analyze the Theory of Relativity, truly one of the more creative theories of all time.  So, as a starting point, the philosopher might begin with the idea that the two principles of the Theory of Relativity are only presumptions that apply only in that schemata of thought.

            Maxwell’s Theory of Electromagnetics presents a paradigm where the Einstein postulates for the Theory of Relativity are not entirely relevant.  To some extent they apply, to some extent they don’t.  The same reasoning applies to Quark Theory:  To some extent the presumptions of the Theory of Relativity apply, to some extent they don’t.  It is therefore better to treat the postulates of the Theory of Relativity as presumptions.

            The mind moves next to consider the relationship between classical mechanics and the Theory of Relativity.  It is cliché to observe that the principles of Relativity do not apply in a classical setting.  In fact, the Theory of Relativity had its roots in problems from the field of classical mechanics.  Einstein was familiar with the problem of trying to coordinate clocks between moving trains and stationary platforms, a problem that existed in Switzerland around 1900 or so.  These days, of course, highly precise clocks can be used on both the moving train and the stationary platform so that the difference in time is negligible.  The presumptions of the Relativity schemata do not apply to the schemata of classical mechanics.

            To generalize, the philosopher first views the fundamental postulates of most any theory as presumptions.  Some theories, such as the Theory of Gravity, are definitely “work-around” theories, but this doesn’t defeat the method.  By viewing a theory’s postulates as presumptions rather than as established fact, the philosopher can then begin to analyze when the theory applies, and when it does not.  From there, exceptions to the theory can be established.